Ron Paul wins straw poll at CPAC

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 3:11 AM GMT
    http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/ron-paul-wins-straw-poll-at-conservatives-meeting-1250338.html

    WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, won the straw poll of conservative activists Saturday as their top choice for the 2012 presidential nomination, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished a strong second.

    Paul was the first choice of the 3,742 voters at the Conservative Political Action Conference, with 30 percent. Romney got 23 percent. The Texan and Romney also finished one-two in last year's poll, with almost identical percentages.

    The vote among the other potential contenders was fractured, even after more than a dozen potential candidates paraded to the podium over three days to make their cases to a convention that drew more than 11,000 people from around the country.

    Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson was the first choice of 6 percent; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who didn't attend the conference, also 6 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 5 percent; Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, 4 percent; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 4 percent; and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, 4 percent.

    Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, who declined to attend, got 3 percent.


    Also here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    Does this mean liberals need to find someone else go vilify? In many ways, Sarah Palin has been a trojan horse for liberals. Her vilification has been so disproportionate to her influence and political support that it's attracted a number of people to pay more attention to the Tea Party on this basis alone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 4:23 AM GMT
    Riddler -

    Re: Sarah Palin. You're entire premise is ridiculous. No one has done more to keep herself in the public eye, primarily through the use of outrageous and mostly false statements, vilifying and attacking her opponents, and generally destroying their own chances of ever holding elective office as has Sarah Palin. That you on the one hand purport to be a highly educated and intelligent man, and then continuously defend one of the most vapid, intellectually dishonest, and morally questionable political figures to ever darken the lower 48 says far more about you than those of us who take delight in her constant devolution.

    And liberals are not the ones who are paying attention to her; it's the media and the right wingers who are constantly shoving her down our throats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 2:39 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.statesman.com/news/nation/ron-paul-wins-straw-poll-at-conservatives-meeting-1250338.html

    WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, won the straw poll of conservative activists Saturday as their top choice for the 2012 presidential nomination, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished a strong second.

    Paul was the first choice of the 3,742 voters at the Conservative Political Action Conference, with 30 percent. Romney got 23 percent. The Texan and Romney also finished one-two in last year's poll, with almost identical percentages.

    The vote among the other potential contenders was fractured, even after more than a dozen potential candidates paraded to the podium over three days to make their cases to a convention that drew more than 11,000 people from around the country.

    Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson was the first choice of 6 percent; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who didn't attend the conference, also 6 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 5 percent; Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, 4 percent; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 4 percent; and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, 4 percent.

    Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, who declined to attend, got 3 percent.


    Also here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    Does this mean liberals need to find someone else go vilify? In many ways, Sarah Palin has been a trojan horse for liberals. Her vilification has been so disproportionate to her influence and political support that it's attracted a number of people to pay more attention to the Tea Party on this basis alone.


    This probably to me was the most surprising! I mean where did he come from (yes, I heard of the name before but not in presidential context)? I didnt even know he was seriously in the game. Any explanation on the showing? The event was in DC too - not like it was Phoenix or someplace where he could bus people in or something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 8:39 PM GMT
    Great news! Too bad the social conservatives will stop at nothing to make sure someone like him doesn't get elected.


    jprichva said
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva saidRon Paul is a crackpot and a white supremacist.


    I don't think he is either.


    The white supremacist part of him is well documented. See:


    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/71834/

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/17/155438/459

    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-supremacist


    What a bunch of poppycock hearsay. Your accusation is not only tenuous, it's disingenuous.

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Feb 13, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.statesman.com/news/nation/ron-paul-wins-straw-poll-at-conservatives-meeting-1250338.html

    WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, won the straw poll of conservative activists Saturday as their top choice for the 2012 presidential nomination, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished a strong second.

    Paul was the first choice of the 3,742 voters at the Conservative Political Action Conference, with 30 percent. Romney got 23 percent. The Texan and Romney also finished one-two in last year's poll, with almost identical percentages.

    The vote among the other potential contenders was fractured, even after more than a dozen potential candidates paraded to the podium over three days to make their cases to a convention that drew more than 11,000 people from around the country.

    Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson was the first choice of 6 percent; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who didn't attend the conference, also 6 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 5 percent; Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, 4 percent; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 4 percent; and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, 4 percent.

    Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, who declined to attend, got 3 percent.


    Also here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    Does this mean liberals need to find someone else go vilify? In many ways, Sarah Palin has been a trojan horse for liberals. Her vilification has been so disproportionate to her influence and political support that it's attracted a number of people to pay more attention to the Tea Party on this basis alone.




    Coincidentally, house fires and car wrecks have been known to attract large crowds of gawkers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 9:15 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie said
    What a bunch of poppycock hearsay. Your accusation is not only tenuous, it's disingenuous.

    It isn't hearsay, it's documented fact. I realize that after living inside the Faux News bubble forever you can no longer tell the difference. But these aren't accusations or allegations. He has contributed to white supremacist newsletters under his own name. He was attended their meetings. He is on actual lists of attendees. He has been advertised as a speaker at their conferences.

    You can spin all you like, it doesn't change facts.


    You cannot find one shred of evidence that he supports or endorses any white supremacist organizations. That being said, even if he did have personal racist thoughts all that matters is what he plans to do policy wise. I may have a belief that no one should have sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship, but as long as I'm not going to impede on the rights of people to do so then what does it matter? It's just a pointless criticism that has no actual bearing on anyone's freedom.

    If I was running for president and I secretly hated "fat" people, does it really matter as long as any policy i stand for has nothing to do with singling out or hurting or discriminating against "fat" people? Do you think I would actually get away with implementing a policy that directly hurts "fat" people without having political repercussions?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie saidIf I was running for president and I secretly hated "fat" people, does it really matter as long as any policy i stand for has nothing to do with singling out or hurting or discriminating against "fat" people? Do you think I would actually get away with implementing a policy that directly hurts "fat" people without having political repercussions?

    Being sensitive to race in this country is on a whole different level than being senstivie to fat people.

    A president has to be president of all Americans, no matter who voted for him. For a president to be known to dislike a segment of his constituency---for whatever reason---before he even takes office is a sign that he (or she) is unfit for the office.


    Nonsense. There's no difference but the one you've invented in your head and urged by western society. Disliking is disliking, hating is hating. Doesn't matter if you're an ageist, a "weightist", a racist, whatever. What's important is that the freedom and rights of everyone is preserved, regardless of our little preferences or dislikes or likes.

    Oh and, marrying or partnering with someone whom we feel is attractive is not hateful discrimination against someone who we feel is unattractive (well, I suppose in a certain way it is a form of discrimination!), it's more accurately "preference".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2011 5:13 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    A president has to be president of all Americans, no matter who voted for him. For a president to be known to dislike a segment of his constituency---for whatever reason---before he even takes office is a sign that he (or she) is unfit for the office.

    Does this mean that Obama has to work to the be president of the racists or the Klan... are they not Americans? I have to disagree with the idea that he has to be the president of all Americans regardless of who voted for him or that he can not dislike a segment of his constituency.

    I would rather have a politician who hated gays but would fight for equality than a politician who pays lip service (or possibly even LOVES the community) but does nothing of substance to work for equality. I know it would be rare for this to happen, but I would sooner judge a politician on what they do than what they say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2011 3:18 PM GMT
    west77 said
    jprichva said
    A president has to be president of all Americans, no matter who voted for him. For a president to be known to dislike a segment of his constituency---for whatever reason---before he even takes office is a sign that he (or she) is unfit for the office.

    Does this mean that Obama has to work to the be president of the racists or the Klan... are they not Americans? I have to disagree with the idea that he has to be the president of all Americans regardless of who voted for him or that he can not dislike a segment of his constituency.

    I would rather have a politician who hated gays but would fight for equality than a politician who pays lip service (or possibly even LOVES the community) but does nothing of substance to work for equality. I know it would be rare for this to happen, but I would sooner judge a politician on what they do than what they say.


    Exactly! The point is not for people to love us, it's for them to recognize that we deserve equal rights. Isn't it ridiculous how fundamentalist christians want to deny our rights because they believe that gay "activity" is contrary to God's will, but yet they have no problem allowing "adultery" or "fornication" to be legal even though it's contrary to God's will?

    What we need is for enough people to recognize this one day. No one is asking them to accept gay people, just to grant us equal rights and tolerate us as we tolerate their bigotry.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Feb 14, 2011 3:25 PM GMT
    This CPAC straw poll is meaningless. Romney won in 2008 and we know how well that went.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2011 4:06 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    west77 said
    jprichva said
    A president has to be president of all Americans, no matter who voted for him. For a president to be known to dislike a segment of his constituency---for whatever reason---before he even takes office is a sign that he (or she) is unfit for the office.

    Does this mean that Obama has to work to the be president of the racists or the Klan... are they not Americans? I have to disagree with the idea that he has to be the president of all Americans regardless of who voted for him or that he can not dislike a segment of his constituency.

    I would rather have a politician who hated gays but would fight for equality than a politician who pays lip service (or possibly even LOVES the community) but does nothing of substance to work for equality. I know it would be rare for this to happen, but I would sooner judge a politician on what they do than what they say.


    Exactly! The point is not for people to love us, it's for them to recognize that we deserve equal rights. Isn't it ridiculous how fundamentalist christians want to deny our rights because they believe that gay "activity" is contrary to God's will, but yet they have no problem allowing "adultery" or "fornication" to be legal even though it's contrary to God's will?

    What we need is for enough people to recognize this one day. No one is asking them to accept gay people, just to grant us equal rights and tolerate us as we tolerate their bigotry.


    Hear hear!

    [thumps desk in approved Parliamentary fashion].